4 ms·

Because the reason the mother doesn't have career experience is because she spend the time contributing to the family in other ways, allowing the husband to foc

Because the reason the mother doesn't have career experience is because she spend the time contributing to the family in other ways, allowing the husband to focus more on work. Had she not been married, she would have (by necessity if nothing else) had a career outside the home instead. Social security generally provides a bare minimum safety net, if that; it's unreasonable that one spouse should walk away in a far better financial position than the other after both contributed to the marriage.

Ekaros 5y ago
Mother made the choice to prioritize family over career. That was always an option. I see no reason to punish other person. If the other person forced mother, she should have divorced at that point and gotten on with the career. Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children. I see no reason why such person deserve anymore than bare minimum. That is bare minimum that society considers acceptable. So clearly it should be acceptable for absolutely everyone.
- oblio 5y ago
  > Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children Abortion, ok. But do you mean putting your own, healthy kids up for adoption???
  - agensaequivocum 5y ago
    - oblio 5y ago
      There is no definition of a fetus where it's totally equivalent with a child. And I guess you don't have kids if you imagine attachment to a fetus is the same as to say, a 1 year old child. Anyway, I don't want to discuss abortion, so feel free to monologue if you so wish.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Why not? It is an option if career and lifestyle is more important.
    - oblio 5y ago
      Few people are that callous. And there are different degrees of "more important". "Throwing the kids away" is a super extreme measure few would take. I hate it when during internet discussions, suddenly the other side slides on a slippery slope all the way to Level 99.
    - chefkoch 5y ago
      Let me guess. Your single without children?
      - cakoose 5y ago
        Even if Ekaros is single without children, I don't see how one can grow up in a society without understanding how difficult it would be for a parent to give up their child. Adoption may be the best option for some people in some situations. I can imagine that. But presenting it as an obvious solution to this problem indicates a glaring gap in their understanding of human beings.
- tempestn 5y ago
  So a couple get married. They (voluntarily) have children. Then they make the decision together that the wife will quit work to spend the majority of her time raising their children and managing the household, while the husband will continue working outside the home, as his earnings are sufficient to support the family. Some time later they divorce. You're saying at this point the husband should now keep his entire income for himself, and the wife should have to rely on social security? She would effectively then have to choose between remaining in the marriage or becoming destitute. How is that reasonable? I guess you're saying that no one should choose to live in a single-income family, to guard against this eventuality?
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    Yes. And the wife can re-enter the career or start a new one. It is not so hard these days. I see no reason why the wife should be allowed to leech of the husband. And no she won't be destitute. Finding minimum wage work should not be impossible. Yes, if you want to be sure that you don't end up badly, either accept that minimum standard is social security. Or safe up yourself. Don't expect to be able to exploit someone else for your heightened standard of living.
    - ealexhudson 5y ago
      Maybe it's easier to explain on HN as being about founders. A marriage is a single legal entity, like a startup, where the two founder share equal equity (by default) with no vesting. It doesn't matter that one founder does the sales and brings in revenue and the other builds the product: the equity split is still 50/50. Obvs prenups etc tweak the split/vesting schedule effectively, and that's fine, but don't expect to be a CEO of a startup, sell £1M of product and be able to walk away with the entire value of the business.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
        But to follow your analogy, 'keeping the partnership amicable' was traditionally seen as falling more to the person not out bringing money into the business. Divorce was much rarer when single-income arrangements were the norm, there may be some uncertainty as to causality but the two went hand in hand. If it's in someone's job description to keep the family together and they fail to do that - well granted, sometimes they were up against impossible odds, but it seems like the stay-at-home partner is getting the best of two eras, modern responsibility for keeping the marriage together and earlier responsibility for contributing financially.
- bserge 5y ago

Ekaros 5y ago

Mother made the choice to prioritize family over career. That was always an option. I see no reason to punish other person. If the other person forced mother, she should have divorced at that point and gotten on with the career. Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children. I see no reason why such person deserve anymore than bare minimum. That is bare minimum that society considers acceptable. So clearly it should be acceptable for absolutely everyone.

oblio 5y ago
> Abortion and adoption is realistic options for possible children Abortion, ok. But do you mean putting your own, healthy kids up for adoption???
- agensaequivocum 5y ago
  - oblio 5y ago
    There is no definition of a fetus where it's totally equivalent with a child. And I guess you don't have kids if you imagine attachment to a fetus is the same as to say, a 1 year old child. Anyway, I don't want to discuss abortion, so feel free to monologue if you so wish.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Why not? It is an option if career and lifestyle is more important.
  - oblio 5y ago
    Few people are that callous. And there are different degrees of "more important". "Throwing the kids away" is a super extreme measure few would take. I hate it when during internet discussions, suddenly the other side slides on a slippery slope all the way to Level 99.
  - chefkoch 5y ago
    Let me guess. Your single without children?
    - cakoose 5y ago
      Even if Ekaros is single without children, I don't see how one can grow up in a society without understanding how difficult it would be for a parent to give up their child. Adoption may be the best option for some people in some situations. I can imagine that. But presenting it as an obvious solution to this problem indicates a glaring gap in their understanding of human beings.
tempestn 5y ago
So a couple get married. They (voluntarily) have children. Then they make the decision together that the wife will quit work to spend the majority of her time raising their children and managing the household, while the husband will continue working outside the home, as his earnings are sufficient to support the family. Some time later they divorce. You're saying at this point the husband should now keep his entire income for himself, and the wife should have to rely on social security? She would effectively then have to choose between remaining in the marriage or becoming destitute. How is that reasonable? I guess you're saying that no one should choose to live in a single-income family, to guard against this eventuality?
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Yes. And the wife can re-enter the career or start a new one. It is not so hard these days. I see no reason why the wife should be allowed to leech of the husband. And no she won't be destitute. Finding minimum wage work should not be impossible. Yes, if you want to be sure that you don't end up badly, either accept that minimum standard is social security. Or safe up yourself. Don't expect to be able to exploit someone else for your heightened standard of living.
  - ealexhudson 5y ago
    Maybe it's easier to explain on HN as being about founders. A marriage is a single legal entity, like a startup, where the two founder share equal equity (by default) with no vesting. It doesn't matter that one founder does the sales and brings in revenue and the other builds the product: the equity split is still 50/50. Obvs prenups etc tweak the split/vesting schedule effectively, and that's fine, but don't expect to be a CEO of a startup, sell £1M of product and be able to walk away with the entire value of the business.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - SuoDuanDao 5y ago
      But to follow your analogy, 'keeping the partnership amicable' was traditionally seen as falling more to the person not out bringing money into the business. Divorce was much rarer when single-income arrangements were the norm, there may be some uncertainty as to causality but the two went hand in hand. If it's in someone's job description to keep the family together and they fail to do that - well granted, sometimes they were up against impossible odds, but it seems like the stay-at-home partner is getting the best of two eras, modern responsibility for keeping the marriage together and earlier responsibility for contributing financially.
bserge 5y ago